The communication barriers consisting of different communication styles primarily took place as the power distance of United States is identified to be in the middle range but at the same time there is very high power distance across China. This prevented the Chinese employees to approach the leaders of US openly and assertively when they did not get any chance of exchanging communication across the conference calls. However, due to medium power distance, the US members believed that the Chinese colleagues will promptly ask them anything that they deem essential. The analysis of individualism vs. collectivism indicated that while the members of United States were working individually, the Chinese members were continually working in a collective manner. This further required increased amount of patience from the US members during the conversations as reaching an end result for the Chinese members takes relatively more time.
Furthermore, the employees of Lenovo were very task oriented whereas the IBM members were not due to which the commitments towards the tasks were often found to be breached to the inefficiency from the IBM members. This can be identified through the high uncertainty avoidance scores of US and low scores of China that resulted in the mismanagement of the tasks.
The analysis indicates that the primary difference is that while the culture of United States is individualist, the culture of China is collectivist. Therefore, when the official language was changed from Chinese to English the technical engineers experienced the major difficulties with the project development. Furthermore, the strong resistance to change was developed by the Japanese members of IBM. The masculine culture of IBM has been identified to have this effect on the members of Japan since they share high levels of masculinity, and the ownership of Chinese was viewed to be threatening to Japanese workforce.
Moreover, the difference towards the work motivation was experienced as the high long term orientation was found to be present across the Chinese members, but at the same time, this was quite low across the American members. Hence, when a collaborative project developed, the American members of IBM were not able to meet the rigid timelines and the negative perceptions towards the counter part were developed by the Chinese members. This had developed high level of stress among the Chinese colleagues since the Chinese society is regarded to have low tolerance for the uncertainty avoidance. The tight deadlines and agendas limit the long term orientation of the Chinese due to which the factor of autonomy was reduced with the hold of IBM.
The combination of the Trompenaars’ model and dimensional model indicates the contrasting differences that were essential to be foreseen and mitigated prior to the inclusion of the Chinese workforce within the global workforce.